Allowed

Subhash Mandal v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Nov 2013WP/33711/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned order directing the petitioner to vacate alleged encroached land as it was passed without prior notice or the opportunity to file representations, violating natural justice principles under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceeding directing the petitioner to vacate land is set aside. The respondent is free to initiate proceedings under the Act following the proper procedure.

Subhash Mandal Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Telangana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33711 of 2013

¶3

Date:25.11.2013

¶4

Between: Subhash Mandal, S/o Sudhanya Mandal

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And: The Govt of A.P, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and another.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mohammed Rahail Ahmed Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶9

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 18.11.2013, of respondent No.2 in proceedings, vide Rc.No.B/149/2012, whereby he has called upon the petitioner to vacate the land in Survey No.395 of Kadamba Village, Sirpur Town and Mandal, Adilabad District, which was allegedly encroached upon by him.

¶11

A perusal of the impugned notice shows that though the same is termed as a notice, respondent No.2 has unilaterally come to the conclusion that the petitioner has encroached upon a part of the land which was allotted to Kalimatha temple and constructed a house and lavatory. In the notice, respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the report, dated 20.12.2012, of the Mandal

¶12

Surveyor and the Mandal Revenue Inspector of Sirpur Town.

¶13

Sri Mohammed Rahail Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that neither a prior notice was issued to the petitioner nor a copy of the purported survey report was supplied to him and that, therefore, the action of respondent No.2 is not only arbitrary but also in utter violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶14

Upon carefully examining the impugned notice, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having called for the survey report, it is the duty and obligation of respondent No.2 to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, by furnishing a copy of the survey report to him. After considering the objections, if any, that may be filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 should have passed an order under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). As respondent No.2 has not followed this procedure, the impugned proceeding is set aside leaving respondent No.2 free to initiate proceedings under the Act by following the proper procedure.

¶15

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶16

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.41929 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶18

25^th November, 2013 DR

Subhash Mandal v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Mandal v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nune Rama Krishna,S/o.Pullaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gundreddy Narayanamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary

Gangavaram Matyakarula Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kallepally Venkatesham Vs The District Collector

Mohd. Waheeduddin Vs The Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare

Thammana Manikanta Karthik, S/o Manga Raju Vs District Collector